MINIMAL SET UP?

[Beston1]

Is this just me, or are my ears hearing a better sound from my 2466 & 1936 `Vintage` 2x12 V30`s?
I usually run`Gtr-TU2-GE7-Digital Delay-Amp`. I thought about trying `Gtr-TU2-amp` and WOW what a difference!!! It sounds even better!!!

Could this be due to the fact im getting more of a direct signal and the other two pedals were `sucking`some tone.I never used the GE7 & Delay hence the reason for taking them out of the chain.
Settings: (Im using a Les Paul) Volume 7, Detail 7, Body 5, Gtr volume on 4/5 and 10 for solo`s.

Wonderful!

[surfnorthwest]

Could this be due to the fact im getting more of a direct signal and the other two pedals were `sucking`some tone.

Yes but probably not enough suckage to be that noticeable. I think the key was removing the EQ from the chain. The modulation also from you delay would have had a great deal to do with the overall sound also.

Sometime less is more as they say.

[sugarkane]

I respectfully disagree with anyone that thinks a pedal in the chain doesn't cause major tone suckage. And I mean a single instance never mind a stack of those things. Hey that's just me, don't shoot.

Not to say you won't like the results - I can't get close to a Hendrix sound without a Fuzz Face - but it's always a trade-off between suckage and tonal variety added. Sometimes ... only sometimes ... the narrowing of the signal spectrum can even feel like an improvement (say subtly rolling off spikey high end). But if live I can put a tuner in an alternative output from the amp that isn't going to the speakers I'd always do it.

Oh, and "true bypass" ad speak (IMHE) is rarely, if ever, true - it's expensive for manufacturers to do properly.

I'd trust your ears on this one.

[JkGriffin]

I respectfully disagree with anyone that thinks a pedal in the chain doesn't cause major tone suckage. And I mean a single instance never mind a stack of those things. Hey that's just me, don't shoot.

Not to say you won't like the results - I can't get close to a Hendrix sound without a Fuzz Face - but it's always a trade-off between suckage and tonal variety added. Sometimes ... only sometimes ... the narrowing of the signal spectrum can even feel like an improvement (say subtly rolling off spikey high end). But if live I can put a tuner in an alternative output from the amp that isn't going to the speakers I'd always do it.

Oh, and "true bypass" ad speak (IMHE) is rarely, if ever, true - it's expensive for manufacturers to do properly.

I'd trust your ears on this one.

Well... you would not be able to hear or feel any difference when I put a bypass on my pedalboard to check... and I did have a few pedals.
The key is to be conscious of what you are placing in the signal chain (True Bypass vs. various buffers). I've sold a lot of pedals due to tone suckage.

And where do you get the information that these pedals claimed to be True Bypass rarely, if ever is?
I mean, I agree that Boss and Digitech rarely (I think never) use true bypass, but they don't advertise as such either.

Brands like Analogman, Keeley, Mad Professor, Barber Electronics, RMC, Strymon, Sonic Edge (Fargen) do charge their customers enough to be able to put a real true bypass in their pedals... and what do you mean by it's expensive to do properly. We are speaking of a switch that either send the signal through some kind of electronics in the pedal even when pedal is off (buffered) or sending the signal straight through the effect pedal (true bypass). Are you suggesting that they spill alot of soldering tin in the pedal to save money?
It's either True Bypass or it's not. You have a lot of different buffers on the other hand... and some manufacturers like to glorify their buffers... and what is best... well, the "experts" will disagree as long as there is someone around to ask the question... so try/hear for yourself. In that I agree with you.

I know that you just respectfully disagree... and you explain why... but I don't really understand the background for your statements here as I can't see their validity. If you put a Blackpitch tuner in your chain... or to an alternative signal output. You will never hear a difference unless there is something really wrong with your pedal somewhere.

[Slashwannabe1]

The Boss GE-7 should either be on our out of the chain, though if it is left in the chain its not that bad of tone lossage. I noticed a slight bit of luster when its out of the chain than when its in but everything still sounds great even with it in unlike a Dunlop Crybaby Wah stock which will suck over half the tone out of your rig, which is why that $6 dpdt switch was the best thing ever to make it a true bypass.

My Boss RV-3 has a slight amount of bleed to it, you can hear the delay repeats if I'm using a 700ms delay I can hear the repeats in the hum noise. As far as I'm concerned those buffers can suck my ass, but at least Boss pedals still sound good stock.

Slash's rig has this Voodoo Labs switcher that regardless of weather a pedal is true bypassed or not it will remove it out of the chain when not in use and as a plus it comes with its own compact switch board.

[TubeStack]

Now get rid of the TU2 and you're all set!

[Papus]

Get rid of all that digital crap - just plug your guitar straight into your amp and dime it!!!!!
Problem solved :)

[Onza_Jk]

Sweet, straight in is the way forward!
I should perhaps invest in something that can isolate my pedalboard when playing live.

[JkGriffin]

A bypass pedal would to the trick... like Keeley's Looper pedal:
http://www.robertkeeley.com/product.php?id=23

Works like a charm... don't even need power supply if you can live without the lights.

[Onza_Jk]

Oh man, that keeley looper pedals looks awesome!

[sugarkane]

Hi JkGriffin - I think we mostly agree.

"I've sold a lot of pedals due to tone suckage."

So a lot of pedals (most?) apply suckage? Agreed.

"And where do you get the information that these pedals claimed to be True Bypass rarely, if ever is? I mean, I agree that Boss and Digitech rarely (I think never) use true bypass, but they don't advertise as such either."

Hey, now we're identifying that the market sales leaders (Boss, Digitech, Ibanez etc.) don't even attempt to design around this problem (Dunlop makes claims as I remember but they've got to be kidding). Agreed.

"Brands like Analogman, Keeley, Mad Professor, Barber Electronics, RMC, Strymon, Sonic Edge (Fargen) do charge their customers enough to be able to put a real true bypass in their pedals... and what do you mean by it's expensive to do properly."

So boutique manufacturers do up prices to improve this situation over the market leaders? Like I said, extra expense. Agreed.

"We are speaking of a switch that either send the signal through some kind of electronics in the pedal even when pedal is off (buffered) or sending the signal straight through the effect pedal (true bypass).
It's either True Bypass or it's not. "

Can I come back to this one? I think "True Bypass" is a relative term not an absolute one.

"You have a lot of different buffers on the other hand... and some manufacturers like to glorify their buffers... and what is best... well, the "experts" will disagree as long as there is someone around to ask the question... so try/hear for yourself. In that I agree with you.

I know that you just respectfully disagree... and you explain why... but I don't really understand the background for your statements here as I can't see their validity."[/quote]

I hope the following aside helps to see where I'm coming from.

Ever asked a top-line studio how much they spend on instrument cables? A lot. It's a secret weapon to get expensive tone for visiting bands. Not the Eventide harmonisers or Urei compressors or Neve pre-amps or Neumann mics (shop price $10k+). The 'effin guitar cable.

So "true by-pass" is a pretty meaningless phrase because it is a comparative phrase that doesn't give comparative terms. It means "all of the circuitry is not engaged if the effect is switched to standby because instead we route away from all the major components to minimise tone loss COMPARED to ... shooting through everything in the box". Is that the same thing as no tone loss? Not at all. It means less than routing right through everything in the innards. How much less? Not specified. It's an industry standard term that does not have an industry standard of audio result.

So does the bypass test sound identical to removing the pedals entirely and using:

1) Studio quality cables?
2) The standard cables sold in guitar shops?

Same principle with internal bypass routing inside a pedal. It happens but to what audio standard? Same principle with external boxes ... etc. etc. Have you got studio quality cabling from:

Guitar >>> Each patch link pedal-to-pedal >>> Pedal to amp >>> Amp to cab? At about $50 per foot.

A rough guess @ 1 player, 4 pedals, 1 amp, 1 cab = say $600-700 (!!!) of leads.

If not then test results will be compromised by the leads never mind the pedals. It would be like a short-sighted photographer focusing a camera without wearing his glasses. Can a bypass box costing $75 really sound as transparent as all of the above pro list? Maybe ... I can't say for sure because I haven't heard it ... but you get what you pay for so I'm sure you can understand some scepticism on my part.

Geez ... that's a long explanation needed for a throwaway remark earlier. Has anyone stayed with all of that? You asked where I'm going from and I've skipped a lot to get to the essential talking points.

Many good players steadfastly employ pedals (Jimi Hendrix, Eric Johnson, Gary Moore) many eschew them (EVH, AC-DC). So take your pick. Guess which side I'm on? I'd love to persuaded otherwise and want to hear more top end examples.

[TonyC]

Interesting discussion. Have you ever considered that what a pedal, 'tone sucking' or not, does to the tone can be just what a player wants? Heck, even the 'tone sucking' itself could be the mojo. Surely there are applications for ultra clean high quality signal chains, like in the recording studio, or if you really like having nothing between the guitar and amp. Also some of the most highly regarded studio equipment like the Urei and Neve are far from clean and transparent measure wise. They could be described as 'tone sucking' by some.

I agree though that the term 'true bypass' is not exactly well defined. But on the other hand nor is the term 'tone sucking'.

[sugarkane]

I completely agree and refer you to my earlier point -

"Not to say you won't like the results - I can't get close to a Hendrix sound without a Fuzz Face - but it's always a trade-off between suckage and tonal variety added. Sometimes ... only sometimes ... the narrowing of the signal spectrum can even feel like an improvement (say subtly rolling off spikey high end)."

I'd still advocate the cleanest signal path into high-end studio gear because then the Neves can generate their subtly beautiful distortion from a clear fully-preserved input. They degrade less than you would think - it would mostly cause a change by ADDING transformer distortion affecting the low-end harmonic overtone series. And rounding out transients - which again, is a change not signal loss per se.

I agree that the line between "suckage" and just plain helpful alteration hasn't been defined in this thread but ... y'know ... I was already banging on a bit. Howabout - "suckage" degrades the signal path (like a bad photocopy of a photograph) but "alteration" has clearly described change and benefit (like adding Photoshop depth to colours of a photograph)?

In this case a Boss pedal/$10 guitar cable is the bad photocopy and a Neve studio device is Photoshop. Both alter, one sucks vital signal info.

[TonyC]

Agreed, and well put

[SteveD]

http://www.studiospares.com/adaptors/ne ... yout=empty

Guitar on one end, amp on the other. About as true bypass as you're ever going to get but a bit impractical due to proximity effects and mechanical pitfalls.